Captivating Women

A number of related posts which caught my eye. Basically it starts with a few reviews of a book that I can see would wind me up.

 

• The CBE Scroll: Captivating: Not a Wild Enough Beauty.
• What (Not All) Women Want: Christianity Today
• Andy Rowell:  Eldredge's Captivating Distorts Christian Femininity So Read These Books Instead.

The summary of the book [Captivating by Stasi and John Eldredge] from the Christianity Today post is

The gist of Captivating is this: "Every woman longs for three things: to be swept up into a romance, to play an irreplaceable role in a great adventure, and to be the Beauty of the story."

Some quotes from the book:

• "Beauty is core to a woman—who she is and what she longs to be,"
• "Beauty is what the world longs to experience from a
  woman." "Pioneer women brought china teacups into
  the wilderness, and I bring a pretty tablecloth to eat on when my
  family camps. We wear perfume, paint our toenails, color our hair, and
  pierce our ears, all in an effort to be ever more beautiful."

Hopefully that has put you off reading it :-) What a load of tripe.

Fortunately, I can say with conviction and without fear of contradiction that my wife does not conform to this picture, if she had then she would not have become my wife (because I would have not been interested). Instead I was (and still am) delighted to have fallen in love with a woman who is characterised by intelligence, creativity, organisation, humour and musical ability. These were visible when we got married after she finished university (2 years after me) and immediately in her first job (as a Civil Engineer) became the main breadwinner of the family. When the first Church we joined together snapped her up as Church Treasurer (sensibly not even considering me for the position).

It is not particularly that I am trying to boast about my wife (tempting though that might be). But what a loss to the human race to limit 50% of the population to choosing pretty tablecloths and putting on makeup. I struggle with equating Jesus coming to bring us life in all it's fullness with this image of life - it certainly would not be a full life for Jane (or would it have been for my Mum, or my sister or my sister-in-law all of whom have been/are intelligent people who have rightly held positions with significant authority and responsibility).

Now I don't imply that the roles that women in our family are automatically right for others, each person needs to discover their gifts, talents and the plans God has for them. So I find it sad that a women has a blog dedicated to telling other women how to limit themselves in the way she finds right for her (and of course attempt to justify it for scripture). So I don't recommend: Solo Femininity (bad for blood pressure). Instead read Andy Rowell who can write

I'm thrilled to be a pastor's husband.

Personally I am delighted that when we have ministers meetings around here the men are generally in a minority.

Comments

[PamBG]

Dave - thanks for the respectful and admiring tribute to your wife.

More boring stuff along the lines of "God created all women with the same personality type, and if you happen to be able to make a decision, you're a domineering home-wrecker". The flip-side male stereotype (the guy who has to have all the right answers and be Superman all the time) seems equally burdensome to me.

[DaveW]

I find that it does not take people many minutes to suss out that, at least in my case, "The flip-side male stereotype (the guy who has to have all the right answers and be Superman all the time)" went belly up a long time ago.

[John]

If there's one thing that I've learned about dating and love and such, it's this: a woman, no matter what she says on the surface, yearns to be loved as a woman. And she desires not a man who is androgynous, but is a man. Even the most ardent feminists that I have known hold this standard.

[DaveW]

John,

I agree all people yearn to be loved as persons in their own right. Beyond that I feel you are speaking in terms of your culture.

[Pam]

a woman, no matter what she says on the surface, yearns to be loved as a woman

Actually, this woman knows exactly what she means and she says exactly what she means.

There are women and men who naturally fit the stereotypes and that's absolutely fine. There are women and men who do not fit the stereotype and that, contrary to what some Christians say, is absolutely fine too.

I hope that NOBODY who goes into ministry will ever be convinced of the words "No matter what you say, I know what you really want."

[John]

Hey, it's great that tossing our traditional gender roles works for you. In the meantime, I'm going to do what's necessary and proper to keep my wife happy.

Actually, this woman knows exactly what she means and she says exactly what she means.

Actually, the feminist ex-girlfriend from years back slept with a traditional macho man, in complete and utter contrast to her ideology. Lesson learned, there.

Maybe I'm generalizing way too much from the women that I've dated. But we all try to make sense of romance from the experiences that we've had, and this is what I've learned.

[DaveW]

"But we all try to make sense of romance from the experiences that we've had, and this is what I've learned."

True, the problem comes when we try to generalise from our own experience. It is all too easy to make assumptions about others. From there it can be a small (and very dangerous) step to what Pam describes:

'I hope that NOBODY who goes into ministry will ever be convinced of the words "No matter what you say, I know what you really want."'

I find that the time I spend on the original context and meaning of scripture very helpful in this regard. It makes it clear how alien the culture of the Bible is to my own and therefore how impossible to apply my own cultural lessons to others.

[PamBG]

Hey, it's great that tossing our traditional gender roles works for you.

This is a rather emotional and totally unwarranted statement in the context of a theological conversation.

In the meantime, I'm going to do what's necessary and proper to keep my wife happy.

Please, by all means, do what it takes to make your wife happy. I'm not telling you how to relate to your wife.

If I recall correctly, I was the one saying that women are individuals with all sorts of personalities and preferences. I'm certainly not going to tell you how to relate to a woman I've never met!

[John]

This is a rather emotional and totally unwarranted statement in the context of a theological conversation.

Really? Explain how my comment is non-germane.

[Suzanne McCarthy]

Dave,

Thanks for this. I read the reviews for this book and can't say strongly enough that, in seeking to bring literacy and digital literacy to others, I seek my own adventures, fight my own battles and admire beauty, rather than worrying about what role I play and whether I am 'the Beauty'.

But today in church, my pastor actually stated that God 'gives man a task' and 'made woman to support man'. I will have to make some major decisions soon.

This is not about androgyny, this is about the fact that God wants women to respond to him, he gives them tasks that do not obligate finding a man to support.

Yes, Solo Femininity raises my bood pressure.

[DaveW]

Suzanne,

Ouch. Difficult and painful choices to have to make. May you be aware of God with you as you work through them.

[PamBG]

This is a rather emotional and totally unwarranted statement in the context of a theological conversation.

Really? Explain how my comment is non-germane.

I'm arguing that every woman is different and that, just as it is OK to have a personality type that is regarded as the "approved feminine stereotype", so too is it OK for a woman to be decisive, to know her own mind, to be able to observe and analyse facts.

I'm arguing for allowing each woman to make up her own mind and for giving each individual the dignity and of allowing her to speak for herself. Rather than saying "No matter what a (wo)man says s/he wants, I actually know better."

I am not arguing that traditional gender roles are bad.

You don't know me and have no basis on which to state that I am a person who has "tossed out gender roles".

[DaveW]

John,

When Pam disagreed with a woman, no matter what she says on the surface, yearns to be loved as a woman you replied Hey, it's great that tossing our traditional gender roles works for you.

You made an assumption that because she disagreed with your statement she was rejecting "traditional gender roles".

The two are not identical. Traditional gender roles do not rely on your romantic experiences. Rejecting your experience does not equate to rejecting traditional gender roles.

Oh and I'll chuck in an extra argument. "Whose traditional gender roles?" Where do you take the traditions from (both time and place)? The earliest understanding of Church that we have (from the New Testament) has a very different understanding of gender role to 20th century North America. At that time we see Christians being far more egalitarian than the surrounding community (the exact opposite to the US today).

I agree that in the early Church (post New Testament) that men reasserted a patriarchy in the Church but that was later.

[John]

Well, let's see what Pam wrote:

I'm arguing that every woman is different and that, just as it is OK to have a personality type that is regarded as the "approved feminine stereotype", so too is it OK for a woman to be decisive, to know her own mind, to be able to observe and analyse facts.

I'm arguing for allowing each woman to make up her own mind and for giving each individual the dignity and of allowing her to speak for herself. Rather than saying "No matter what a (wo)man says s/he wants, I actually know better."

That certainly sounds like "tossing out traditional gender roles".

Dave wrote:

The earliest understanding of Church that we have (from the New Testament) has a very different understanding of gender role to 20th century North America. At that time we see Christians being far more egalitarian than the surrounding community (the exact opposite to the US today).

Are you arguing that the 1st Century Church was more egalitarian than that at present?

[Pam]

That certainly sounds like "tossing out traditional gender roles".

John, are you seriously saying that a man - any man - knows a woman's mind - any woman's mind -better than she does?

And are you saying that to not believe that statement is "throwing out traditional gender roles"?

[DaveW]

"Are you arguing that the 1st Century Church was more egalitarian than that at present?"

Yes, certainly more than some. See Romans 16.

[John]

Dave, read the quoted section: Pam clearly disagrees with the traditional pre-determined gender roles. That's straight from the text. You can read negative connotations into "tossing out traditional gender roles", but that is what she is saying either way.

[John]

Wait, I got my names switched. That last comment should be addressed to Pam.

[PamBG]

John, I am trying to tell you what I think.

As far as I can hear - and correct me, please if I am wrong - you keep telling me over and over that you know what I mean to say better than I do.

Either give me a break and listen to me, or we stop this conversation.

I know what I mean. I may not be communicating it well, but I am the best interpreter of what I write. Not you.

This is what I mean:

The statement "All women want X" is a gross generalisation.

It is not a statement that makes room for an individual woman to speak for herself.

It's nothing to do with "busting traditional gender roles".

It's everything to do with respect for the individual person.