Posted by Helen on: 02.10.2007 /
Ann posted the following comment on the blog entry Paul defends Wild at Heart:
Hi 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: ncxian
1I was raised to be a tough, efficient independent person, and it’s how I deal with the world today. I feel like I have been successful as a person this way.
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve begun to consider “interdependence”, and how my life might be improved if I were less focused on “doing it by myself”.
But I suspect that I am coming from exactly the opposite direction from women who need to escape from a limiting paradigm (for example, a conservative faith community). I suspect that that is the audience for Wild at Heart so I would guess, from what you say Ann, that it perpetuates traditionally limited sex roles, which I personally think hurts everybody.
Comment by: Rachel
2Ann, the abolitionist Angelina Grimke is a special hero of mine. I find her letter “Appeal to the Christian Women of the South” (1836) to be especially powerful. Here is an excerpt:
Are there no Shiphrahs, no Puahs among you, who will dare in Christian firmness and Christian meekness, to refuse to obey wicked laws which require woman to enslave, to degrade and to brutalize woman? Are there no Miriams, who would rejoice to lead out the captive daughters of the Southern states to liberty and light? Are there no Huldahs there who will dare to speak the truth concerning the sins of the people and of those judgments, which it requires no prophet’s eye to see, must follow if repentance is not speedily sought? Is there no Esther among you who will plead for the poor devoted slave?…
Yes! If there were but one Esther at the South, she might save her country from ruin; but let the Christian women there arise, as the Christian women of Great Britain did, in the majesty of moral power, and that salvation is certain…The women of the South can overthrow this horrible system of oppression and cruelty, licentiousness and wrong.
In addition to Shiphrah and Puah, the Egyptian midwives who defied Pharaoh’s command to kill all Hebrew baby boys, the prophets Miriam and Huldah, and Queen Esther, Angelina Grimke also references the prophet-judge Deborah, the warrior woman Jael and the prophet Anna.
And we mustn’t forget to mention Harriet Beecher Stowe whom President Lincoln called “the little lady who started the war.” Or the majestic preacher and activist Sojourner Truth. Or the great labor leader Mother Jones who risked life and limb to seek justice for child laborers. Not a weak, incapable or dependent woman among them!
Comment by: Eliza
3Efficient, yes. Independent herself, yes, but helping support others who need her. Tough, yes, when the circumstances require toughness (100% tough, 100% of the time might make for a sad life).
To add another woman from history who fit these descriptors - Sojourner Truth. From her 1851 talk “Ain’t I a Woman?”:
Comment by: Rachel
4I love that speech! Thanks for posting it, Eliza.
Comment by: Ann
5Love the quotes. Beautiful examples of women both genders can admire. Ncxian - I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by “independence.” I am not referring to “going it alone” when I describe independence. “Interdependence” is not necessarily mutually exclusive with “independence.” When I describe independence, I am thinking of a sense of being comfortable in your own skin, able to think critically and really sort through the issues — wrestle even — and discern what God says. Women have a tendency towards “group-think” and often abdicate their God-given duty to make quality decisions in favor of the prevailing notions of the day. The female abolitionists had to be able to go against the grain of society, perhaps their own churches (and sometimes even their own husbands) and stand firm on what they believed God said about slavery. I’d add, “courageous” to how I define independent.
Eliza wrote:
“Tough, yes, when the circumstances require toughness (100% tough, 100% of the time might make for a sad life).”
Eliza — I wasn’t referring to circumstances when I described “tough”. What I meant by “tough” is where one chooses to do the right thing, the ethical thing, the fair thing, no matter what. One may have been blessed with a comfortable lifestyle and retain a deep sense of justice. Tough is the frame of mind and heart that says that you will choose to follow the narrow path without compromise.
Comment by: Eliza
6Ann, thanks for repeating the definitions you’d given originally - I did read them in the original post in this thread, then managed to revert to less thoughtful definitions in my response. Given your definitions, I’d say, it’s OK for women to have all 3 characteristics - yes, yes, and yes!
Comment by: ncxian
7Nah, not really. I just figured we were all going to totally agree with you (which we do) so I thought I’d try to pick a fight. Sorry, it’s just my tough, efficient, independent streak! The other respondents were more thoughtful and grown-up about it! :)
Comment by: benjamin ady
8…can I just say I *hated* wild at heart? That struck me as interesting about me, since I’ve not met another guy who has read it and hated it. They all say they really liked it, identified with it. I, meanwhile, found myself writing huge curse words in the margins and messily underlining bits and then angrily writing my comments, in between throwing the book across the room at the wall out of anger frustration. He just kept making these arguments from premises with which I disagree enormously in a way that implied “well, of *course* every one agrees about the premises”. Mostly the premises were “men think like this, or feel like such and such, or at their root they are like such and so forth”, and I kept finding it so not true about me, and it was so … stereotypical, and just endlessly and unbelievably annoying.
So there’s a guy’s perspective thrown into the discussion sort of way off the topic, but about the same book.
Comment by: Doreen
9Should not having read the book stop me from commenting? Ah, perhaps….
I don’t see tough = ethical. Ethical is not = standing up for what you know is right; see Hitler, see Nixon; see Clinton, Bill; see Ollie North; see President Bush. I’d rather be known as ethical than tough; in fact, I don’t think I’d like to be known as tough at all. How about fair? (Instead of “tough” vs. “weak”?)
That sounds good.
That one sounds good also.
Tough, efficient, independent women?
Condi Rice, eh, no. I don’t think she’s independent - how could she be in her current role?
Margaret Thatcher, perhaps. Definitely tough in the original definition, but not in mine, fair.
Sandra Day O’Connor - I’d say yes on all 3 fronts.
Rosa Parks - not sure about the efficient but definitely tough and independent.
I nominate Billie Jean King, Susan B. Anthony, Julia Ward Howe, Marie Curie, Marian Anderson, Violet Palmer, oh stop me now, someone….
I must read that book to see what I’m violating….
Comment by: ncxian
10Benjamin, I don’t think what you are saying is off topic at all. I think that what I’ve heard about Wild at Heart, and what Ann is alluding to, is that certain characteristics appear off-limits for women, and for men. Stereotyping. And stereotyping in the long run hurts everybody, even when it may be a “positive” stereotype, because it keeps us all from being our best selves.
Racial discrimination and economic disparities don’t just hurt racial minorities or poor people, they hurt the society as a whole. Same with sex roles that keep us from being who we should be.
Comment by: Laura M.
11How about Oprah, or is that too cliche?
Comment by: Laura M.
12Also,
Elisabeth Cady Stanton, Harriet Tubman, Clara Barton, Amelia Earhart, Maya Angelou (efficient?)
…Hillary?
I really like Rosa Parks and Sojourner Truth on the list.
Comment by: Laura M.
13Oh, I’m from Texas… How could I leave out Ann Richards?
Comment by: Rachel
14Benjamin, my husband had absolutely no desire read the book or participate in a “Wild at Heart” men’s group at our church. His first introduction to WAH was seeing a photo on the front of a Christian magazine of Eldridge letting out a primal scream. That completely freaked him out and he had no interest in it after that.
Yes, I guess “tough” can be a pretty subjective word. In this context, I think of it as perseverance, courage, conviction, refusal to be intimidated.
Oh, yes! “Pooooor Geooooorge!” And we mustn’t forget another Texas woman - the late great Molly Ivins.
Comment by: Helen
15Benjamin, I’ve come across other men who didn’t like Wild at Heart either.
When I first read it and had reservations about it, I was still going to church. I discussed it with someone respected there and was reassured to find he agreed with my concerns.
The book imo aims to set men from from wrong expectations of them imposed by churches. I like that goal. I’m happy for men who are set free to be themselves by this book. However, the way the book achieves this, ironically, is to impose expectations of its own which don’t necessarily fit all men. And along the way it imposes expectations on women which, as we are discussing, may not be appropriate.
Comment by: Helen
16Rachel wrote:
Rachel, the book draws on the pagan mythological archetypes described in the book Iron John which is anything but Christian. It amazes me that Christians who otherwise have nothing good to say about pagan mythology, enthuse about this book which draws on it.
I wouldn’t mind if they said “pagan mythology is great and so is this book” - it’s their inconsistency which frustrates me.
Comment by: Julie Marie
17coming a little late to the conversation, but I’ve been thinking about some of these traits lately and what they mean to me. I agree with everything that has been said but would like to add
tough: having the inner strength to persevere through times which bring, as Karen said in another post, a “darkness of the soul” without letting the situation direct your behavior away from your core standards.
Efficient: recognizing when further effort towards a project will not yeild measurable results and finding an appropriate venue for redirection. Not wasting time tilling soil that will no longer bear healthy fruit.
Independent: toughness and efficiency lead to this one, imo. And I would define this as trusting myself to take care of my responsibilties. It also encompases, so some degree, the abiity to recognize my own limitations and how to compensate. I’m not all that good at part II of independence, but life has a way of teaching those lessons when needed.
Comment by: Karen
18Benjamin, I think I love you. (Whoops - sorry Megan! I know he’s taken. ;-) )
What you describe is exactly how I felt reading so many Christian women’s books. They started from such stereotypical positions, none of which remotely applied to me, and they made these blanket statements aimed at putting women in what would have felt to me like a strait jacket. No wonder I always hung around on the edges of the male conversations at Sunday school potlucks, huh?
Truly, thanks for your honesty. There’s nothing worse than feeling like you are a freak of nature because you don’t fit into the narrow window allowed your gender in certain church circles. Yeesh!
Comment by: Karen
19My hero! I loved it that even reading her obit, through tears, I was laughing my head off. What a great woman, wonderful journalist and terrific public watchdog we lost when she passed, way too soon.
Comment by: Helen
20Karen wrote:
*sigh*
Comment by: Rachel
21I always felt exactly the same way, Karen! Now my faith understanding is different - I wrote about this on my blog - but I’m still around some people who think that way and I find it terribly suffocating. I’m glad you were able to get away from that environment, Karen.
Comment by: Ann
22Does anyone think that the author really means “hard”, “cold”, and “mean” when he is using the words “tough”, “efficient” and “independent”?
If what the author is really trying to say is that character traits such as “cold”, “hard” and “mean” are harmful, then I probably would agree. I saw a story on 20/20(?) discussing real-life “mean girls” in middle school who completely humiliated a little middle school boy. He was so distraught that he ended his own short life.
I do feel that there is a strong, evil, cultural undertone out there that encourages cruelty, particularly in our school environments. However, it is going to take women that are tough, efficient and independent to be a counter-cultural Christian voice.
Comment by: Rachel
23Well said, Ann! And those of us who are Christian should stand shoulder to shoulder with our sisters who are not religious to speak for the issues we all care about.
Comment by: benjamin ady
24It’s been a while since I read Eldredge’s book, but I just wanted to check, and he didn’t actually say “Women *shouldn’t* be tough, efficient, and independent”. What he did say was “The world kills a woman’s heart when it tells her to be tough, efficient, and independent.” Which is … slightly different. Thought I’d throw that into the mix. I wonder if Eldredge meant to be heard as saying women *shouldn’t* be these things, or if he was more trying to say that this is the primary message he sees being given to women, and that that is a harmful message. In either case I think he’s wrongish. It seems to me that the primary message being shouted at women in America is “Be physically perfect, meet this insane societal standard of perfection physically” and also “Your worth is almost entirely wrapped up in what you look like, and in your ability to please men” I think these are (among) the messages that kill women’s hearts, and it’s too bad John didn’t address those.
Comment by: Ann
25I felt that there was a direct enough link — if the world says these things to women [be tough, efficient, and independent] and the author feels it kills your heart — then the author thought these traits were harmful to women. I agree with you that the world gives women the message that prettiness is more important than character. To a degree, I also agree that the world gives the message that it is OK to use your sexuality to manipulate men. I would say that the book is more inline with the world’s perspective on women — to be pretty/beautiful and to know how to be seductive/manipulative to get your way. Honesty, humility, and understanding are definitely not emphasized.
One other point I didn’t understand was the whole “inviting” notion. [The books asks why women can't be "simply inviting."] From what I understand, the “inviting” idea came from a professor the author studied under, Dr Larry Crabb. Dr. Larry Crabb’s analysis of what makes an authentic male and female is, to be blunt, based it on our sexual organs and the sex act. Apparently, a man is most a man when he is “strongly enters” and a woman is most a woman when she “warmly invites.” So, when I “strongly enter” a courtroom, I’m a man? To strip away power from a woman and place her in a straight jacket seems, well, criminal. But, this fits in with the idea that women should be on the receiving end of things, such as being rescued. Carried to its logical conclusion, based on my sex organs, being proactive on my part, or any woman’s part, is out.
Comment by: Paul
26Ok I’m not gonna write another defence of the book, lol. I can’t even remember the offending sentance in Q - i like how you defined the terms Ann, by way of contrast does Eldridge - if so how does he define what he meant by those 3 terms?
I don’t think there is any one book that is gonna be helpful to everyone - personally i read the book more as an antidote to my selfish me first nature and looking at some of who i am honestly to realise something of why i do what I do… that gets very personal and specific :)
as far as i am aware there is no need to think of it as any other book which may or may not work for you ;)
Comment by: Helen
27Ann, Larry Crabb used to be one of my favorite authors before I started to have problems reading most Christian books.
I had heard that he was quite sexist but the books I’ve read didn’t talk about men and women - so it was not an issue in them.
I think arguments like his, as described by you, are rather unfair because of course we can’t change our anatomy.
Not to get too graphic but I would say a man who ’strongly enters’ sounds more like a rapist than a loving husband. I would give all the prizes to men who exercise enough self-control to ’sensitively enter’ - because it means they’ve realized this is not just about them.
Comment by: Laura M.
28Maybe this could be the topic of the next poll question?
Comment by: Rachel
29Ah, “Fascinating Womanhood” is back!
Comment by: Karen
30Helen:
LOL - is that a sigh of resignation or commiseration? Or both? ;-)
Comment by: Karen
31Rachel:
Yeah, not only suffocating but just … I dunno, BORING. I understand that some people find home decorating and crafts fascinating - more power to them - but I’m just not in the groove with that 24/7. There’s got to be more to life!
Here’s the counterintuitive bit: The friends I hang out with now are professional women, not necessarily atheists (one is) but generally less conspicuously religious. And they are so much LESS competitive and MORE vulnerable personally than my former clique. Maybe the difference is that I now choose my own friends, instead of having a social group chosen for me?
Comment by: Helen
32Karen - ummm, I think it was both!
Comment by: Julie Marie
33haha Karen, could be :) I hadn’t thought about that before, but I have for years felt rather like a “duck out of water” with the “girls.” Not just with religious groups, but also with the spouses groups. (used to be officers wives club, but of course, with women being officers now that had to change - I can only imagine how out of water the male spouses must have felt!)
Comment by: NCxian
34My hypothesis is that powerlessness leads to bitchiness. So, for instance “the girls” in a traditional male-dominated office are sometimes hard to be around because they have tons of responsibility and little control over what happens. A recipe for a crabby, unhappy person.
Comment by: benjamin ady
35Ncxian,
that sounds exactly right to me. I find when I can stop being such a bastard and explicity and consciously work on giving away some of the power to my wife, and take on more of the responsibility (that is, try to move things in the direction of our power/responsibility ratios being closer to one, instead of me having a high ratio and her having a low ratio), she’s in general happier. When you say it so clearly, it just seems bloody obvious.
Comment by: Rachel
36I have had the same experience, Karen. Some of my friends now are religious and some aren’t. But the main thing that draws us together is that we genuinely like each other - imagine that!
Wow, I think that is very insightful, NCxian.
Comment by: Ann
37Paul wrote: “I can’t even remember the offending sentance in Q - i like how you defined the terms Ann, by way of contrast does Eldridge - if so how does he define what he meant by those 3 terms?” Paul, I don’t recall the author defining the terms directly. I wish they had been. I understand and would agree if the author had said “Hard, cold, and mean” (see earlier post) or even if the author said “Bitchy, calculating, and unforgiving”. But “tough, efficient, and independent”?
I absolutely respect that you liked the book and that it helped you. However, I was thinking in terms of what women thought. What did they feel about the character traits of “tough, efficient and independent” and whether they agreed, on the whole, with the author.
As far as the validity of discussing these traits, I have a real world example. My younger sister is studying to become a surgeon. She’s never twirled skirts [a trait that little girls are supposed to do according to the book] but she’s always dissected things. [At 6 years-old she asked for her own pocket knife...she was later found dissecting ants.]
My sister told me that other female colleagues look at her like she’s crazy, that being a “surgeon” is really for men (”after all, how could you possibly have a family?” they question her.) Many (but not all) male colleagues are downright intimidated by her confidence. But here’s the interesting thing — her patients adore her. Nurses gravitate towards her. And those who have the power to help her achieve her dream see her talent. She’s tough, efficient, and independent. And I’m so proud of her.
I guess I’m not a fan of any books that diminish a woman’s worth or paint her into a box.
Comment by: Rachel
38And you should be!
Ditto.
Comment by: Paul
39Thanks Ann, i appreciate you coming back.
Words are pretty fickle things and I can understand how you were upset/offeneded with these three [maybe his editor struck out bitchy et al,lol?]…
Since the author doesn’t define them we can’t know what he was thinking if anything when he wrote them.
Personally I can see why each term could be undeserible when defined in one way for both men and women and then again desirable when defined another - in particular situations/contexts as you describe it will be good to have someone like that and in others a real mare :).
I’m glad your sister is training to be a surgeon, it sounds like she has awesome talents/ability which are making a difference in helping all sorts of people, i wish her all the best…
Comment by: Ann
40Paul, wrote:
“Since the author doesn’t define them we can’t know what he was thinking if anything when he wrote them.” If I understand what you wrote correctly, I think what you were trying to say is that it is impossible to determine what the author meant when using the terms “tough, efficient, and independent.”
I disagree. I think you can sort out the meaning based upon the context. For example, you explained that the words can be negative “when defined in one way for both men and women”. However, the key to understanding what the author meant is to define the context, the gender, referred to. So, in context, we know that the author is only referring to women. He does not say that being tough, efficient and independent kills a man’s heart. Had this applied equally to both genders, I believe the author would have said so. At the very least, we know that what the author is referring to is what he perceives to be negative traits for women, but not necessarily for men. With the negative context on a woman, I can see where the word “tough” might have been substituted for “bitchy”. [After all, we don't call men "bitchy"] However, it still does not explain “efficient” or “independent”, neither of which have as strong a negative connotation.
Another way of looking at what the author meant is to see if there are other descriptive words/phrases that the author thinks are negative traits for women that may shed light on his thought process. In the book, “competent” was seen as an undesirable trait for a woman. “Feminism” was described as “tired”. [Note: historically, feminism means that women receive the same rights as men. For example, the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote in the US in 1919. One wonders Frederick Douglas, a former slave who became a statesman, would say in this blog were he alive — a man who ardently fought for the rights of women.]
Finally, I would say that one can gather from external sources, such finding root of where the author got the notion that women should be “simply inviting”. [see earlier post where the root explanation is presumably based on women's genitalia.]
Therefore, I believe that the author is looking a stereotypical sex/gender roles. These gender expectations are prolific in Christian-American society. With a sigh, I see the irony that Rachel referred to by citing “Fascinating Womanhood,” circa 1963, a book fraught with gender-based assertions that Christians eagerly endorsed. [Here's an excerpt: when upset with her husband, a wife should practice "childlike anger...the charming and showy anger, spunk and sauciness of a little girl."]
I have a radical idea: Do you want to encourage the heart of a woman? Tell her that she is fine the way she is. Period.
Lay off the expectations on outward appearances. Don’t’ tell her that her primary purpose is to “be beautiful.” Encourage her to go against the world system that tells her that she can only get ahead by using her sexuality to manipulate. Let her be authentic, even if it defies your definition of what an authentic woman “should” be.
Also, don’t tell her how to act — that she needs to demonstrate that she is a real woman by trying to fit into with a certain gender-stereotypical pattern. [i.e. being weak, inefficient, dependent, emotional, incompetent (opposite of competent) etc.]
I believe that there are many women who have been hurt by these stereotypes in real ways, women such as my sister. In fact, resonating through many of the women who have posted in this blog is a real pain that goes deep into their psyche…they have been made to feel less of a woman by the very folks (Christians) who should have been their most ardent supporters. Affirm that she is already created in the Image of God. And He did a fine job.
Comment by: Meg
41I love your words Ann about encouraging women to be authentically themselves. I relate to the deep pain stereotypes can cause women.
I resigned from paid work when I was pregnant with Cosette, who is now 3, having worked during Eowyn’s babyhood. Being a full-time Mum is much harder than working was, but it’s incredibly difficult now to find a job that’s interesting and part-time, which would fit with mothering.
The helplessness which accompanies looking for work and not finding it is really aggravating. There’s something attractive, within that frustration, in just angrily giving up, and not trying to be tough, independent and efficient. Failing is painful.
And it seems this kind of struggle and tension is common for women. Society doesn’t just let us BE who and what we want to be. There’s so much pressure to DO DO DO… and so much guilt, too.
Comment by: Rachel
42Bravo, Ann! Well said!
Comment by: Rachel
43Meg! (hug) I’m glad you’re back on CatE - we’ve missed you!
Comment by: Paul
44Thanks Ann, i don’t mind you disagreeing with me - i think as the author doesn’t define what he means by those terms they are left to our own defining and I accept that for you the context is negative for terms that you think are not negative and can indeed be very positive.
Personally I agree with the positive way you have interpreted the terms and in the contexts you give i think they are good things and not at all negative.
I can however see ways in which the terms could be negative and thus fit the context of the authors writing - these are my own alternative interpretations…
tough - it could mean bitchy but i wonder if it is not that hardness that people can develop, that thicker skin, that less caring nature, something of a hardness of emotion, character, being. It is less about resiliance and more about protection/safety/hiding - not letting people see you as weak or flawed.
efficient - it could be something that is about being clinical, about giving a minimum of self, of losing the ability to be generous - a certain coldness and reserve which gets the job done but with no joy, or enjoyment…
independent - a way of life that is about me, about my own self sufficiency, of not needing any one else, of putting myself first and ensuring that i am safe by not making emotional/physical/spiritual ties with anyone - an undermining of trust, of sharing, of supporting, giving, loving that gives but does not expect to get back…
If i made those associations with those terms as expressed above i would not want to be them, i suppose the contrast would be to phrase it in positive terms…
soft - caring, humble, teachable, kind, caring, open to people
generous - giving, fun, excessive, a life that is about the maximum, with a fullness that spills out and overflows with warmth, vitality and enjoyment
interdepent - a life that is shared, where love is given and received, where i can care about people, help people, be open and supportive and receive that same kind of love back - being committed to people in good times and bad even when it costs and they can’t give back to me - recognising that times in my life i’ll be like that…
Comment by: Ann
45Paul, I like your positive definitions, recognizing that all people (men and women) benefit from being soft, generous and interdependent, as you described them. I think you are very generous to the author, too. [I doubt the author had considered the words "soft, generous, and interdependent" to describe men.]
The crux of my argument, however, does not center on what the author feels about people (men and women) in general, but what he specifically relates as characteristics that should define women. At the core of the author’s argument is gender essentialism/gender stereotyping. My previous descriptions (see posts 40, 37, 25) come from the author’s assessment of “woman”, describing her issues/challenges in this world as well as a prescription for alleviating them. The author had already disposed of the men, “the sons of Adam”, whose defining characteristic was “strength”. Next he moved on to women, “the daughters of Eve”, whose defining characteristic was “beauty.” Please note, nowhere is a woman encouraged to have any positive attributes of “strength” or a man encouraged to have any positive attributes of “beauty”.
Lest there be any question of whether this notion of beauty for women is internal only, one need look no further than the author’s next book, “Captivating” which directly links external appearances and the duty a woman bears externally in portraying the Image to the world. To explain this, the authors describe a movie character who wears glasses they find unattractive — exclaiming — in an immediate parentheses — the preposterous-ness of the female offender doing this in the age of contacts! [I wonder why they stopped there, when we live in the age of Lasik!] Thus, we must recognize that the author is looking at an external scale of appearances from which to weigh a woman’s worthiness in portraying the Image.
Likewise, no external evidence of strength is required of a man — no mention of bicep measurements, amount he can bench press, etc., for validation of being a “man”. Per the author, a man is a man intrinsically because he is already a possessor of strength. If the only exercise he gets is playing a piano, he will not be judged weak. He is already strong, he just needs to assert it. A man is encouraged in the book, as the author was personally challenged by a friend, to let the world feel his “weight”. I take this argument to mean that the man is encouraged to stand his ground when he knows he is right. Again, nowhere in the book is a woman encouraged to let the world feel her “weight”, her opinions, her contributions.
I think one has to call a spade a spade and agree that the author is talking about gender stereotyping/gender essentialism. And, although the author is married to a woman, has counseled women, and has friends who are women, I think he misses the mark when describing the prescription that truly heals a woman, truly alleviates her pain.
Do you want to heal the heart of a woman? Let her feel the warmth of your acceptance of who she is. Right now. Unconditionally. Regardless of whether you like her hairstyle, her makeup, her clothing, or her weight. Support her in her dreams, even when they differ from your own. And affirm that she is already created in the Image of God [and He did a fine job] without tampering with the packaging.
Comment by: Laura M.
46Thank you Ann for your toughness- for saying what needed to be said on this issue.
Comment by: Paul
47It is true Ann, the book is about gender and it is about one persons view on gender, mainly the masculine one although he does dabble in the female side - for Eldridge or for us writing any comments here we have to make generalisations as we can not speak for all men/women in all their experiences.
I think people should read that book with that in mind, i can be generous to the author because for me reading the book the message that it spoke to me about was the honesty of being who I am and having the courage to tell the truth and to that end it helped me significantly, particularly where i was hurting and couldn’t face those areas of hurt so carred on with destructive compensating behaviours.
I do not use Mr Eldridge’s work to pidgeon hole men or women, some of his ideas/thoughts were for me very helpful but that does not mean to say that he is not partially/totally wrong/unhelpful for others who have different experiences.
I like the alternative balance/picture you have painted from your own interactions with the book and i have certainly learnt more as a result of you expressing your thinking which might well help me to be a better human being. so thank you!
Comment by: Ann
48Hi Paul,
…just a second…
…just need to put down this romance novel and …
owww!…hard to type…
wait……need to…get….outta…
… this burka…
…ahh…. much better!
OK, you do know I “m kidding you, right?!!
On a serious note, you sound like a man who has worked through some things and has become a better person. Your vulnerability is refreshing, as well as your kindness. I think, however you and Benjamin got there, you both represent the best qualities in men. Thank you for your insight and perspective.
Comment by: Paul
49Ann, awesome am looking for a new romance novel to read, could you sling it over if you’ve finished ;)
I hope you are getting lots of encouragement for how you are, i’ve certainly appreciated your insights, wisdom and you for who you are! That burka comment cracked me up!!!
I’ve realised that I have no desire to change anyone else only myself…