Captivating, Chapter Nine - Arousing Adam

The authors start out by talking about how to love a man. They write, “think about it-all those heroes in all those tales play the hero because there is a woman in his life, a true Beauty who is his inspiration.” (149) This is one of many example in which the authors ignore the contrary evidence…there are plenty of movies in which there is not a “true Beauty” the hero is fighting for…the commonly quoted Lord of the Rings is an example of this…Frodo and Gandalf are two main heroes and they do not have a woman in their life. Most of the heroes in the story do not! Looking to Hollywood to make conclusions about how the word is results in terribly screwed and inaccurate conclusions, as have been made throughout this book. If I were to rely on the popular love stories on the movie screen to learn the secrets of a woman’s heart I would also have to conclude that all women wear a size 2, have endless resources with which to buy designer clothing and will always live happily ever after. Hollywood (movies, books, etc) tells us what we want to hear, not what is true.

A statement follows shortly which says, “True femininity calls forth true masculinity.” (149) While one may argue that this statement is made within the context of a chapter on the relationship between men and women, it is a dangerous statement none the less. It directly implies that masculinity relies upon femininity, therefore a man can not truly be a man unless a “true” woman is present to arouse it in him. What about the men who are not in the presence of any women, not to mention a “true” woman? Do they not have a chance at being truly masculine? And as always, I would ask the authors what do the words femininity and masculinity really mean? Within this book they are used so vaguely as to remove all sense of meaning from them.

"Mary Pipher’s well-known book Reviving Ophelia documents this tragic shift in adolescent. This almost total loss of self. Girls who were confident and courageous in their youth become uncertain in their teens.” (152) First of all, how many of you know this “well-known” book? Second of all, the authors are missing what was really said in Pipher’s book. Pipher observed that girls who were previously naturally outgoing and confident get worn down by sexist cultural expectations by the “media saturated, girl-poisoning culture.” (as read on page 22 of the actual book) I believe this is the very culture that the authors of Captivating are exalting and holding as examples to aspire to – gentle and quiet women in pretty dresses waiting for their prince charming to come rescue them.

“It means the world to me to have Stasi say, “You are such a man.” It means the world the world to have John say to me, “Stasi, you are a beautiful woman.” (153) Why can’t she be complimented by just being a woman, why must it be a beautiful woman? John appears to be happy to simply be called a man. If “the essence of a woman is beauty” isn’t it implied with saying the world woman, in the way they are implying strength when using the world man? Why is it that man can be a compliment when just woman is not?

There are many occasions within this chapter in which the authors continue to write about the way in which femininity and masculinity interact, specifically the way femininity brings forth masculinity. Here are a few examples.. “Femininity is what arouses his masculinity. His strength is what makes a woman yearn to be beautiful.” (154) “The beauty of a woman is what arouses the strength of a man. He wants to play the man when a woman acts like that. You can’t hold him back. He wants to come through. And this desire is crucial. Don’t you want him to want to come through for you. Not to be forced to, not because he “ought to.” But because he wants to come through.” (154) “A woman wants to feel beautiful. The strength of a man makes her feel so. A man wants to feel strong. The beauty of a good woman makes him feel so.” (155) How does this work with their previous statements about not taking our “Question” to the opposite sex, about not relying on a man (or woman) to make us feel complete? They write in a way which seems quite straightforward that a man needs a woman in order to be a proper man. How does this affect singles?

The authors take great freedom in reinterpreting the story from the book of Ruth of her relationship with Boaz. They specifically say, “Boaz needs a little help getting going…” (157) Isn’t he supposed to be initiating? Wasn’t she emasculating him by demonstrating she did not trust him to come through for her, she didn’t trust that he was a real man so she needed to do it for herself. They say her actions “awakens his desire to be the Hero.” (158) What heroic behavior did he exhibit? What was it he did to make him a hero??

An interesting contradiction exists in this statement, “However it is expressed in the uniqueness of your own femininity, arousing Adam comes down to this: Need him. And believe in him.” (161) First of all, how can it be unique if it is the same for all women? Second of all, teaching such passivity and dependency in women is as dangerous as even, but I talked about that last chapter so I won’t go into it further.

I don’t want to take the time to fully put it in context, but the authors write about a woman who asked her husband whether he was interested in her, or just her body, and they say “It was a brilliant trap, well set.” (162) Is a trap not controlling? Is it not manipulative? The authors have written at length about how it is bad to be a controlling woman, yet that exalt this women for the trap she set for her husband!

On page 165 Stasi asked a man to pray for her and he did. She says of the situation, “I made myself vulnerable to him, needed him, in a perfectly innocent way. He came through for me, offered his strength in a perfectly innocent way. My thanks to him was a way of saying, “you have what it takes” How is it that prayer = strength? If women were praying would it be demonstrating strength for them? How was saying “thanks’ saying “you have what it takes”? Is telling a woman thanks also saying “you have what it takes”? This is a common error the authors make, taking the exact situation and interpreting it differently based upon the fact they believe gender to be the most important part about it. If the same words are said to a man and to a woman, then it is the same words. It does not magically change to mean “you have what it takes” when said to a man, or “you are beautiful” to a woman. When seeing these weak examples it becomes more obvious the authors are striving to create differences where none actually exist.

In closing I will say the authors do make some good points about women not depending on men for fulfillment, unfortunately, the rest of their chapter does not line up with that statement.

(All emphasis within quotations is by the authors)