Thoughts on Gender

A couple days ago, I did something very unusual for me. I picked up a book I had read before and read it again (okay, I didn’t reread all of it, but I’ll explain later). And if that wasn’t weird enough, I totally hated this book the first time around. So why pick it up? Good question. I’m asking myself that right now. The thing is, the book is Wild at Heart and it’s a book that I literally couldn’t finish the first time around because it upset me so much. Every time I sat down to read it I ended up getting in a really foul mood and had to put it down.

If you’re like me, you don’t put much stock in anyone’s opinion of a book if they haven’t read it cover to cover. I respect that. And if that’s you, feel free to stop reading this post. I understand where you’re coming from. But otherwise, hear me out because I did read at least 75% of it the first time. I honestly would never put a book down after investing that much in it, but I just truly couldn’t stand listening to the author for one more second.

When I picked up the book again, I was kind of thinking to myself, Oh, I was so clueless when I read this the first time—and really immature. I bet that book isn’t as bad as I’ve been thinking this whole time. People I respect really like this book. I should give it another chance.

Whew! I wish I had been right about that. Turns out I had just as strong of a reaction and put the book down even sooner this time around.

I should probably tell you a bit of what the book is about. This is all through my personal filter, so I’m sure if you talked to someone else they would have something different to say about it. The book is called Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul. Now, I know what you’re thinking. I probably have no business commenting on a man’s soul. Perhaps that’s fair. But I’m married to a man’s soul, and I know a few men so I’ve observed a few things. Plus the author comments on the role of a woman in a man’s life, so I know it’s fair to say my piece about that.

Basically Eldredge is saying that modern society and the church are emasculating men. That men have lost touch with their inner “wild man” and that we need to redefine what it means to be a man. He proposes that men need to take risks, live adventurously, and rescue a “beauty.” Men need to be out in the wilderness exploring, battling, and conquering. Modern society does not typically involve these as daily activities. And I agree with him that something is lost when we all live on concrete slabs and our only connection with nature is walking down the driveway to take out the trash.

My main criticism is what Eldredge has to say about women. Which honestly, isn’t much. When I read a book about either one of the genders, I assume that the book will discuss and define both genders. I don’t think you can wholly define one gender without giving a good discussion of the other gender. While Eldredge did discuss women a little bit, in my opinion, it was extremely insufficient, unbiblical, and personally offensive.

Eldredge says that part of the desire of a man is to rescue a “beauty”. It’s the stuff all of our fairy tales are made of. Men want to rescue the damsel in distress. You know, which is totally fine with me if you are defining beauty to mean both inward and outward beauty. Unfortunately, unless Eldredge decided to comment on inward beauty somewhere at the tail end of the book, he is completely silent on the issue. That’s why I put the book down initially. I figured if I had read 75% or more, and he never got around to clarifying that he meant inward beauty when he talked about “the Beauty” than this wasn’t a book worth finishing. Outward beauty is great and all, but pretty worthless if you don’t have inward beauty.

And maybe at the time of the first reading, I wasn’t feeling particularly pretty? And maybe it made me feel like no guy would want to come “rescue” me since I wasn’t pretty enough? Maybe that’s where my strong reaction came from—my issues. But I just don’t think so. I’m a lot less insecure about my looks these days and this concept still irritates the hell out of me. I’m not saying physical beauty is a bad thing, nor am I saying that men’s appreciation of outward beauty is a bad thing. But it’s like saying all there is to an apple is its skin. The skin doesn’t matter if there’s nothing solid and life-giving inside. Physical beauty is meant to be enjoyed. But it’s not meant to define women (or men). (A verse comes to mind right now: “The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance but the Lord looks at the heart” [1 Samuel 16:7]) No one with any wisdom has ever taught me to put stock in outward appearance. Nothing in my heart has told me to place high value on my looks. And nothing in the Bible has given me that impression either. So basically, I have to say Eldredge is dead wrong on this topic. And personally, if you can’t properly define a woman, I’m not going to listen to you try to define a man.

This is how Eldredge introduces the chapter on “A Beauty to Rescue”:

“Once upon a time (as the story goes) there was a beautiful maiden, an absolute enchantress. She might be the daughter of a king or a common servant girl, but we know she is a princess at heart. She is young with a youth that seems eternal. Her flowing hair, her deep eyes, her luscious lips, her sculpted figure—she makes the rose blush for shame, the sun is pale compared to her light. Her heart is golden, her love as true as an arrow….And one day the boy, now a young man, realizes that he wants to be the one to win the beauty.” (180)

He sets this up as the ideal story that every man wants to live out. Now, I guess you could interpret the whole having a heart of gold thing to be an indirect way of saying “inward beauty”. But I’m not buying it. That’s too big of an issue to couch in such uncertain terms.

Later he describes meeting his wife:

“I met Stasi in high school, but it wasn’t until late in college that our romance began….One summer night something shifted. I dropped by to see Stasi; she came sauntering down the hall barefoot, wearing a pair of blue jeans and a white blouse with lace around the collar and the top buttons undone. The sun had lightened her hair and darkened her skin and how is it I never realized she was the beautiful maiden before?”

I mean, that’s fine if he thinks all those things. But he gives no mention to her personality, her inner strength or character. Ugh. Maybe this is a low blow, but I wasn’t surprised in the next paragraph when he says, “Why is it that ten years later I wondered if I even wanted to be married to her anymore?” If outward appearance has anything to do with the foundation of your relationship, you’re in for a rocky road in my opinion. No one holds their beauty throughout their whole life. I mean, there are pretty old ladies, of course, but you know it’s not the same as a pretty 18 year old. And besides, it doesn’t matter how hot and sexy someone is if they aren’t treating you right (inner beauty). I feel like anyone knows that. Except for John Eldrege, maybe.

Anyway, that’s all about what he has to say about women. What he has to say about men bothers me too, but it doesn’t hit as close to home, so to speak.

Basically, he says that if men aren’t living risky lives and spending time in the outdoors barking like Tim the Toolman, than they aren’t being real men. I don’t buy it. Sure this may release some men who do truly desire those things to be free to do them and enjoy them as men. But what about the men who don’t feel the need to do these things? Or the women who find that they too need to be outdoors to feel alive? Are they not real men? Are those women not fulfilling their God-given role if they need to be outdoors adventuring?

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that my husband is not an outdoorsy type. He likes to cook and garden and take pictures. He’s not the type of guy who needs to poop in the woods to be happy about himself and his life. And I personally find that I need to be outdoors to feel alive and experience God (minus the pooping). Basically, I think that Eldredge is trying to break down the idea that men are supposed to be a certain way, but in doing so, just creates another framework that boxes people in, just in different ways.

My husband came away from the book feeling like Eldredge was telling him that he wasn’t a man if he wasn’t interested in being an adventurous, outdoorsy type. And I came away from the book feeling like inner beauty was trivial, I needed a man to be strong for me, and that I didn’t need to have an adventure of my own.

I think everyone needs adventure. Everyone needs to be outside exploring (but this need is felt in different intensities for different people—men and women). In my opinion, there is still plenty of courage and adventure to be had indoors in our modern life. Have you ever tried to tell someone something that was really hard to say? And when you did, it went really well? That’s adventure. And that can be just as exhilarating as rafting down a river or camping in a remote forest.

Adventure is a human need, not a man need. I need it. You need it. It just depends on how we go about it. And that’s how God reveals himself in the variety of people he made and the variety of ways we go about seeking him and living the lives he created for us.

What do you think?