Captivating, Chapter Four - Wounded

This chapter continues to expand upon many of the flaws which I have pointed out in previous chapters, most specifically the authors assumptions that they are qualified to speak for all women, the manner in which the authors provide lists of “feminine characteristics” that women are to attain to, while denying they are doing that very thing, misuse of Scripture by making incorrect assumptions and pulling verses out of context, as well as appealing to how things are to make statements about how things should be. I will attempt to shorten my responses to each chapter by not responding to each occurrence of these flaws, but that is not to say that are not existing in subsequent chapters, or that I will not sometimes need to point them out.

The authors argue “Women learn from their mothers what it means to be a woman, and from their fathers the value that a woman has – the value they have as a woman.” (61) While I agree that women (and men) learn about who they are and what role they play in the world from their parents (for better or worse), I think it is a mistake to be completely accepting of this way in which the Eldredge’s believe the world is set up. As a Christian, I look to GOD to know who I am, and who I am and what value I have as a HUMAN who happens to be a woman. When a woman discovers that she is pregnant, she does not instantly know what gender her child will be. That is a secondary item. We are human first, gender second.

“From our mothers we receive many, many things, but foremost among them are mercy and tenderness. When my sons were young and got hurt, their dad would say something encouraging like “cool wound.” I would hold them close and tend their injuries.” (62) Here Stasi is pointing out that John does not provide proper care to his injured sons, and somehow it’s good and appropriate for him to do so? I think this is a common occurrence, and I see three possible causes of this phenomenon: 1. Men do not know how respond appropriately because they were never taught. 2. Men do not feel they are allowed to respond appropriately. 3. Men do not want to respond appropriately. Since there are men who work as doctors and nurses, I know it can’t be that men are incapable of providing appropriate medical care, so what is the reason that it falls into the hands of mothers to provide that care for their children? (Note - Both approaches demonstrated by the Eldredges are sufficient for treating such injuries - depending on the situation and the child involved. It's all about the situation. For a father to always respond to his sons in a "cool wound" sort of way does not give the sons permission to hurt. I also would be willing to guess that if John Eldredge had a daughter, he would not respond in the same way, but be more nurturing and gentle. I don't think a child's gender should determine the treatment they receive following some sort of hurt (physical, emotional, etc), and I also don't think a parent's gender (or coach, teacher, etc) should determine how they respond, either. Each person and each situation is individual and unique, and each person should receive treatment based upon the specifics, not purely their gender.)

Next the authors talk about “Our Question” (referring to the question they believe all women are asking, something to the extent of ‘do you think I’m beautiful’). They say, “But as far as our Question – that is primarily answered by our fathers.” (62) Why? They do not provide an answer as to why the question is primarily answered by fathers in their text. This places a lot of unnecessary pressure on fathers, saying that they’re responsible for answering the question to validate women. Interestingly enough, in Wild at Heart, John Eldredge claims that fathers answer the son's "question" as well. It is hard not to interpret the fact that the authors see the father as the seminal figure in both the son's and the daughter's life as claiming that the father is simply more important than the mother. If women are supposed to be the “grand finale, the crown of creation” why do the FATHERS have all the power here?

“Little girls need the tender strength of their fathers.” (62) This is an example of the way in which the authors look at a universal existence and attempt to separate it into genders...strength is strength regardless of whether it is shown by men or women, but the authors attempt to masculinize compassion by calling it “tender strength” instead of simply calling it what it is, which would cause men to ‘question their masculinity’ at having a ‘feminine’ trait.

“Numerous studies have shown that women who report a close and caring relationship with their fathers, who received assurance, enjoyment, and approval from them during childhood, suffer less from eating disorders or depression” (62-63) I imagine that similar studies exist for relationships with mothers, just because one side exists doesn’t exclude the other. Plus, why suddenly the need to attempt to back up your beliefs? And where’s the real reference to these numerous studies?

The authors continue to describe manners in which people have received “wounds”, spending equal time on the fathers and mothers sections, despite previously giving fathers the responsibility to answer “our Question”

“The wounds that we received as young girls did not come alone. They brought messages with them, message that struck at the core of our hearts, right in the place of our Question. Our wounds strike at the core of our femininity. The damage is done to our feminine hearts through the wounds we received is made worse by the horrible things we believe about ourselves as a result” (68) I do agree that many people receive wounds as children and have false beliefs about themselves as children that affects their entire lives. However, I do not believe that these wounds strike us at our gender, rather than simply our hearts. The authors continually elevate gender above all else, and I continue to point out that I am human first, woman second. We have wounds, they aren’t masculine or feminine, they are simply wounds. Suppose there’s a family in which the father has an affair and leaves behind his daughter and son to be raised by their mother. The children BOTH have been abandoned, they’ve BOTH received the wound of being discarded by their father, it doesn’t matter what their gender is. It would do much to create unity within the church and within the WORLD to allow us to see similarities between the genders rather than focusing on (and creating) differences.