Captivating , Chapter One - The Heart of a Woman

This book, subtitled “Unveiling the mystery of a woman’s soul” is written by a husband and wife, John and Stasi Eldredge. The premise of the book is that there are three specific desires that are innate to all women. It begins by John writing “We are on holy ground. Writing a book for men (Wild at Heart) was a fairly straightforward proposition. Not that men are simpletons. But they are the less complicated of the two genders trying to navigate love and life together. Both men and women know this to be true.” (ix) If I were a man, I would find this statement rather insulting. I think both men and women are complicated, however, our culture allows only women to act upon this. And I also feel that the authors' use of the phrase "holy ground" is quite unjustified. In the Bible God calls where his presence resides holy ground...a book about women does not compare. (See Exodus 3:5, Psalm 24:3, Habakkuk 2:20 for examples of places in which the word “holy” was used to describe a place)

In the next three pages Stasi narrates a story in which she, John and their children go canoeing and encounter a dangerous situation. She says, “I was no longer Stasi. I was Sacagawea, Indian Princess of the West, a valiant and strong woman” (3). I enjoyed this introductory story, I enjoyed the excitement and the way in which she allowed herself to be “valiant and strong”, rather than being passive and princess-y as most Christian women tend to be. So, I was shocked when I turned the page and felt I had entered an entirely new book which contained the flowery language of skirts and princes which fills other books written for women, and vast assumptions and declarations about what a woman is supposed to be.

The book does provide some appropriate insights into the ways in which the church and society tend look down on and to treat women, as if their purpose is that of a sweet, disciplined, composed and quiet housewife. On page 8, however, the authors boldly announce, “Whatever it means to bear God’s image you do as a woman. Female. That’s how and where you bear his image…you are a woman to your soul, to the very core of your being”. I find this declaration that my soul has a gender to be quite disturbing and hazardous. If I bear God’s image as a woman, do my other traits do the same? Do I bear God’s image as a graduate of Miami University – does that aspect of my identity reach to my soul and the very core of my being? Gender is seen on a physiological level; as is my eye color, so does my eye color exist as deeply as my gender? Why gender and not other characteristics? Where is the line drawn, and who decides where it goes? Does gender really go that deeply to divide us? How do the authors reconcile this belief with Ephesians 3:26-28 that says, “So in Christ Jesus you are all Children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (emphasis mine).

The first desire the authors state all women have is a desire to be romanced. Stasi shares that when she was a little girl she loved to play “kidnapped and rescued” and watched movies in which the girl was rescued by a hero. She says “I simply loved feeling wanted and fought for. This desire is set deep in the heart of every little girl-and every woman” (9). This is one of many instances in the book in which the authors use “every woman” when stating characteristics, traits, desires and feelings. I find this statement to be troubling beyond the overgeneralization used within it. I think it also contains an undergeneralization. Why do they believe that only women want to be loved and romanced? Stasi talks about when she and John were dating and he wrote her poetry and gave her special gifts, stating “I loved being romanced” (10). I believe that men also feel this way, whether they are permitted to express it or not. Sure, I love when Ryan brings me flowers or plans a special evening, but I know that he equally loves when I romance him and pursue him. There are many who believe that it is wrong for a woman to “pursue” a man, that it creates an unhealthy relationship. This will come about again later in the book, but what about the story of Ruth when she pursues Boaz? (see Ruth 3:7) What about Shulamuth in the Song of Solomon when she is initiating in the relationship with Solomon? (see Song of Solomon 3:1-4,5:6, 7:11)

The first paragraph on page 11 I find to be quite contradictory as well as socially stigmatizing. “When I was a little girl, I used to love World War II movies. I imagined myself being in them. I dreamed of growing up, braiding my hair and then tucking it up under my helmet. I planned to disguise my gender so that I could join in” (11). So, Stasi writes that she would watch war movies and desire to join in the fighting. And yet, just two pages before talk about how all little girls love movies in which they are rescued by the man who is fighting. How can it be both ways, the girl being rescued and fighting? Also, how is it that the movies that Stasi loves to watch are because she is feminine, and yet a man can love the same move but apparently for masculine reasons? Are we perhaps seeing what we want to see? Also, little girls are shown Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty while boys are shown G.I. Joe and Star Wars. Children are taught at an early age what activities each gender is permitted to participate in and that influence is hard to remove.

The authors proceed to discuss the second desire they say all women have; to share in an adventure. They note that “most girls go through a horse stage” in a list of possible adventures, followed by the statement that “…we were made to be a part of a great adventure. An adventure that is shared. We don’t want adventure merely for adventure’s sake but for what is required of us for others. We don’t want to be alone in it, we want to be in it with others.” (12) This particular paragraph is of great interest to me. As many of you may know, I went through a horse stage as a girl, and in fact, I remain stuck in the horse phase 15 years later. I do love the adventure that horses provide me with, that is very true. However, what I love about horses is that it is an adventure for me alone. Granted, the horse is involved, but horses are something I can do without needing anyone else. I can get on my horse and go for a ride and get away from everyone and not have to think about anyone else, it’s just me against me. If all of these supposed statements are true, why do they contradict so heavily? Oh, but wait, it keeps going in the next paragraph when the authors talk about how women are relational at heart…”Our lives were meant to be lived with others. As echoes of the Trinity, we remember something. Made in the image of a perfect relationship, we are relational to the core of our beings and filled with a desire for transcendent purpose" (12). First of all, why are women echoing the relational character of the Trinity, but not men? Secondly, I like to be by myself. I am a highly introverted person, whether it appears that way or not. I am exhausted by being around people; I would love to spend a day riding my horse in a field rather than go to a party or generally be around people. That’s not to say that I do not enjoy having deep friendships (for example, I never tire of spending time with Ryan!), but this is yet another example within this book of a broad statement that is being made of women which is very not true of me.

The final desire the authors state all women have is to have a beauty to unveil. They write, "God has set eternity in our hearts. The longing to be beautiful is there are well" (16). I find this statement to be very dangerous in that the authors are taking a bible verse without referencing it, and adding onto it a statement about how women should feel. The Bible does say that “God has set eternity in our hearts”, but it says nothing of God setting the longing to be beautiful there as well. The way the authors have phrased this does imply that both statements are Biblical, when in fact, only one is. If they are going to tell me that God has done something (set a longing to be beautiful in my heart) I would like Biblical proof, which they are unable to provide.

The end of the first chapter has John talking about the book he wrote for men called Wild at Heart. The book is based upon similar assumptions as Captivating, and makes the same mistakes in reasoning. The type of reasoning used in this book is primarily looking at the way our culture functions, and making conclusions about how things are meant to be from that, rather than considering that our culture has shaped our behavior. The authors essentially say “Girls like to wear skirts, therefore ALL women must like skirts and be made that way with a desire to be beautiful”. By this logic, I can look around and say “Hmm, the fact that humans murder one another must mean that ALL PEOPLE have an innate desire to murder, and that desire was put there by God.” While this example is extreme, it is following the same line of reasoning used by the authors to determine what all men and women think and feel. From the time we are infants throughout our entire lives, we are treated differently depending on our gender. A newborn boy is met with “look how big he is!” while a little girl is met with “aww, look how tiny and beautiful she is”. Boys are handled more roughly through childhood than girls, and the clothes our parents dress us in to the games our teachers allow us to play in school all shape how we act and interact…and each culture and time period is different. Yet, these authors believe that they are able to transcend time and cultures to miraculously make statements about “all” and “every” woman…which I find to be extremely risky.

In summary, I do not fit into the mold they present a woman as supposed to be, while they also state that they are not trying to provide another “to do” list for women. "How do we recover essential femininity without falling into stereotypes, or worse, ushering more pressure and shame upon our readers? That is the last thing a woman needs" (x). I find this terribly ironic that the authors are saying that they do not want to fall into stereotypes, and then proceed to write an entire book about what all women want, and how every woman wants to be a princess in a pretty dress waiting for her prince to come rescue her. "This book is not about what you ought to do or who you ought to be. It's about discovering who you already are, as a woman" (19). This statement about discovering is true - IF I ALREADY AGREE. The authors just spent a chapter telling me how I am supposed to feel, they are giving me a new list of rules to live by.

If these three desires are so universal and innate, why was must I read a book to learn them?

And why do I receive such condemnation for disagreeing with it?

What about how I feel?

What about how I have lived my life?

I am an individual, not an "every little girl” and “all women"!