By way of Carolyn McCulley I came across an article from a Christian perspective by Beth Spraul about what has been referred to as "chick porn", titled Chick Flicks and the World's Approach to Men and Marriage. While I would guess that some men (and probably women too)would disagree with some of Mrs. Spraul's points in places (feel free to point them out if you wish), I think, on the whole, the article makes some excellent points.
Mrs. Spraul asks,
"Does watching such movies actually affect our understanding of romance or shape how we go about looking for this ideal husband?
I think the answer is yes.
We may think we are savvy enough to detect the subtle lies present in this genre of films. You might be reading this saying, “What’s wrong with a little escapist entertainment every once in a while? It’s just a Hollywood story, and I know it’s just fantasy.” If that’s the case, then why is there still that sigh or even a tear(s) after the 20th viewing of your favorite romantic movie? Something in us is stirred."
This is a point well taken. When something like a book or movie plays on what deeply affects you, such as a woman's emotions, it is undeniable that will have influence over you. Mrs. Spraul compares so-called "chick-flicks" and "chick-lit" to pornography in their ability to create unrealistic expectations.
"In this article, I’d like to discuss briefly what I think are three powerful lies communicated to and believed by women through this genre of “chick-flicks” as well as “chick-lit” (literature). The lies told to women are introduced at the level of women’s emotions (less harmful, right?), in how they dream about men, and in what they long for relationally. Like pornography, chick-flicks take a good gift from God (romance, relational intimacy) that women are created to desire, and distort it by presenting as “normal” an unbiblical and unrealistic picture of men, love and marriage. And just like men who buy into the lies of pornography, women who believe that their husbands and marriages should always be like what they see on the screen will be sinfully dissatisfied with God’s good gift to them of a “normal” husband and marriage."
She then outlines the lies that these sorts of books and movies tell to women.
Lie #1: Men think of romance and relational intimacy exactly like women do!
This one was shocking to me. I mean, who knew that men and women think differently!?!? I would say "duh!" to this one except that often I think both men and women expect the opposite sex to think about things the same way they do. We think they should know what we mean and know what we need from them without telling them and that the other should "understand" without having to explain it.
Lie #2: If I marry the right man, all will be right in my life.
Mrs. Spraul makes some excellent points about the fact that even a great marriage will not, and in fact can not, make all things right.
"If we as women approach our husbands with expectations that he will be the primary source that takes away all our loneliness, insecurities, fears and longings for love, we hold him to a standard no human being is able to meet in this life. We set ourselves up for great disappointment through these unreasonable expectations. When our husband doesn’t deliver such total sweeping happiness to our lives, we can be tempted to blame him when it is our own worldly and idolatrous expectations that are to blame! Such expectations can even lead us to be discontented wives who are unsatisfied with the day to day realities of life and responsibility in marriage. We can become unsatisfied with our husband’s love and service and care because marrying him didn’t cure our deepest emotional struggles."
I wonder how much of the current epidemic of divorce is the result of such thinking?
Lie #3: I will know that a man is right for me by feelings I get when I’m with him.
In a recent post, commenter SA related a story about a woman who rejected a man out of hand without getting to know anything about him. Perhaps this is an example of what Mrs. Spraul was referring to here:
"The dangers of putting all of your stock in emotion are serious. First, you can easily convince yourself that you are experiencing “true love” while having little regard for a man’s faith, character, service or ability to sacrifice himself for others. Second, for women considering a man who initiates a relationship with them, this over-emphasis on the emotional experience and level of attraction/chemistry can influence such women to dismiss possible suitors based on her “intuition.” I’ve seen it happen—a woman doesn’t immediately “feel” that a man is her “type” or the “ideal” that she’s had in her mind for her husband—so the man is simply dismissed without ever having a chance to demonstrate his possible worthiness."
Good points, I think, both for single and for married women.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Yes, but is it really a paradox?
This deserves a well thought out and concisely written post, but unfortunately I am currently incapable of that. I'll just do the best I can.
Anymore when I hear the word "paradox" the first thing I think is, "oh, they mean some data or evidence that does not fit their firmly held assumptions has come up". Recently I read a post at Carolyn McCulley's blog about an opinion piece in the New York times about a study recently reported on "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness". The study is a meta-analysis of data from multiple sources which uses logistic regression (beyond my statistical pay grade) to describe "happiness" for men and women for the last 40 years. In a nut shell the findings say that women are less happy now than they were 40 years ago relative to themselves and relative to men.
In his op-ed piece, Ross Douthat offers his opinion that this relative loss of happiness in women is ambiguous.
"All this ambiguity lends itself to broad-brush readings. A strict feminist and a stringent gender-role traditionalist alike will probably find vindication of their premises between the lines of Wolfers and Stevenson’s careful prose. The feminist will see evidence of a revolution interrupted, in which rising expectations are bumping against glass ceilings, breeding entirely justified resentments. The traditionalist will see evidence of a revolution gone awry, in which women have been pressured into lifestyles that run counter to their biological imperatives, and men have been liberated to embrace a piggish irresponsibility.
There’s evidence to fit each of these narratives. But there’s also room for both."
Douthat then goes on to say "Feminists and traditionalists should be able to agree, for instance, that the structures of American society don’t make enough allowances for the particular challenges of motherhood." Sounds more feminist than "traditionalist" (whatever that really means) to me, as in society should support women's choices. He also says that feminists and traditionalists "should also be able to agree that the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women. " This actually sounds feminist to me too, because it refers to the happiness and interest of women rather than the disastrous effects of single parenthood on society as a whole. He also advocates that both feminists and traditionalists should be able to get "behind a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the “fallen women” of a more patriarchal age." Hmm...okay this may get him into trouble with the feminists....
A blogger at the feminist blog Jezebel has a post on the op-ed and on the study itself. What did she focus on? This statement by Douthit: "But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. " And of course she objects vehemently. Because feminism has brought only light and rainbows and flowers and butterflies to the world, right? She postulates the unhappiness felt by women is not because feminism has screwed society up beyond belief and encouraged women to become dissatisfied with, well just about everything, but rather because feminism has not brought enough equality and so women are pissed. The idea that women are discriminated against is highly debatable in the current culture (and I would say not true). But, what she also doesn't get is that any group of people who share characteristics and are different from another group of people are gaining nothing by comparing themselves.
I am 5'5" in height, not short, but hardly statuesque either. What if I compared myself to people 6 feel tall and over? I bet they don't have to get on a kitchen chair to reach the top 2 shelves in their kitchen cabinet! These tall people's feet probably touch the floor when they sit in restaurant booths or when riding in an airplane! It's wrong I tell you. Houses, restaurant booths and planes should be built to accommodate me! I am discriminated against! Woe is me! No wonder I am less happy! The idea that it is reasonable to compare yourself with others who are not like you to begin with makes no sense to me.
Of course that completely misses the fact that like tall people who don't have enough leg room in planes or restaurant booths and probably hit their heads on things far more often than I, just like men experience things differently than women. It seems to me that women would be happier if they stopped comparing themselves to men.
Anymore when I hear the word "paradox" the first thing I think is, "oh, they mean some data or evidence that does not fit their firmly held assumptions has come up". Recently I read a post at Carolyn McCulley's blog about an opinion piece in the New York times about a study recently reported on "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness". The study is a meta-analysis of data from multiple sources which uses logistic regression (beyond my statistical pay grade) to describe "happiness" for men and women for the last 40 years. In a nut shell the findings say that women are less happy now than they were 40 years ago relative to themselves and relative to men.
In his op-ed piece, Ross Douthat offers his opinion that this relative loss of happiness in women is ambiguous.
"All this ambiguity lends itself to broad-brush readings. A strict feminist and a stringent gender-role traditionalist alike will probably find vindication of their premises between the lines of Wolfers and Stevenson’s careful prose. The feminist will see evidence of a revolution interrupted, in which rising expectations are bumping against glass ceilings, breeding entirely justified resentments. The traditionalist will see evidence of a revolution gone awry, in which women have been pressured into lifestyles that run counter to their biological imperatives, and men have been liberated to embrace a piggish irresponsibility.
There’s evidence to fit each of these narratives. But there’s also room for both."
Douthat then goes on to say "Feminists and traditionalists should be able to agree, for instance, that the structures of American society don’t make enough allowances for the particular challenges of motherhood." Sounds more feminist than "traditionalist" (whatever that really means) to me, as in society should support women's choices. He also says that feminists and traditionalists "should also be able to agree that the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women. " This actually sounds feminist to me too, because it refers to the happiness and interest of women rather than the disastrous effects of single parenthood on society as a whole. He also advocates that both feminists and traditionalists should be able to get "behind a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the “fallen women” of a more patriarchal age." Hmm...okay this may get him into trouble with the feminists....
A blogger at the feminist blog Jezebel has a post on the op-ed and on the study itself. What did she focus on? This statement by Douthit: "But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. " And of course she objects vehemently. Because feminism has brought only light and rainbows and flowers and butterflies to the world, right? She postulates the unhappiness felt by women is not because feminism has screwed society up beyond belief and encouraged women to become dissatisfied with, well just about everything, but rather because feminism has not brought enough equality and so women are pissed. The idea that women are discriminated against is highly debatable in the current culture (and I would say not true). But, what she also doesn't get is that any group of people who share characteristics and are different from another group of people are gaining nothing by comparing themselves.
I am 5'5" in height, not short, but hardly statuesque either. What if I compared myself to people 6 feel tall and over? I bet they don't have to get on a kitchen chair to reach the top 2 shelves in their kitchen cabinet! These tall people's feet probably touch the floor when they sit in restaurant booths or when riding in an airplane! It's wrong I tell you. Houses, restaurant booths and planes should be built to accommodate me! I am discriminated against! Woe is me! No wonder I am less happy! The idea that it is reasonable to compare yourself with others who are not like you to begin with makes no sense to me.
Of course that completely misses the fact that like tall people who don't have enough leg room in planes or restaurant booths and probably hit their heads on things far more often than I, just like men experience things differently than women. It seems to me that women would be happier if they stopped comparing themselves to men.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
An invitation to women
Over at Biblical Manhood, Anakin has a post about women finding his blog and or MGTOW/MRA misogynistic. Perhaps Suzanne and Janet would be willing to answer the following question here: What on Biblical Manhood did you find misogynistic?
Come ladies, let's reason together.
(Suzanne I am sorry for the recent loss of your father. Please feel free to ignore me at this time if this discussion may cause you further distress)
Come ladies, let's reason together.
(Suzanne I am sorry for the recent loss of your father. Please feel free to ignore me at this time if this discussion may cause you further distress)
Friday, May 29, 2009
Insert snappy title here
Still struggling with brain freeze, though I was able to finish writing a proposal (whew!) that was hanging over my head. So, again, here are some random thoughts for your consideration.
Extremism: I while back I wrote a post where I talked about the benefits of considering opinions more extreme than my own. It takes a bit of mental work, but often there is some truth at the base of many extreme opinions. I just have to be careful that I don't get carried away with it. Yesterday in the comments to a post over at Novaseeker's I made the mistake of reading the comment of someone who I had previously decided to avoid reading the comments of. However, I saw that he referred to my friend Ame, so I read it. You know, this may be the first time ever that I saw some good from porn. Perhaps it is better for women if some men prefer porn to them. Of course the reason it would be better has to do with the effects of porn to begin with, so that is rather a circular argument (and yes, entirely facetious).
Purity: Via email, a friend recently commented on some of the discussion over virginity and particularly the, um, physical aspects of it. She shared this bit of wisdom, gleaned in part from The Facts of Life: Purity resides in the heart, not in the vagina. True that.
Along similar lines, but far funnier, was a conversation I recently had with a group of single christian women ranging in age from early 20s to early 50s. We were talking about singleness and sexual temptation when one of the women, a widow in her early 50s who I'll refer to as "J", began to relate a story about a date she was on several months ago. J said that she found the man very sweet and that she really liked him and was struggling with being sexually tempted when he had his arm around her waist. She then shared that she was simultaneously embarrassed that he may be able to feel her Spanx. This lead to her conclusion that Spanx = modern day chastity belt :) (I know the ladies will think that is funny...we laughed over that one for quite a while)
Being "Normal": Or normalcy or normality? I don't know if those are even words. Anyhoo, I am participating in a women's Bible study on the book of Esther and the teacher via video (Beth Moore) did a survey of women, both believers and unbelievers while preparing for the study. One woman, married for a few years but without children, who responded to the survey said that she feared losing her uniqueness. She does not want to be considered normal or ordinary. She does not want who she is to be defined by being some one's "wife" or some one's "mother", she just wants to be "happy". The teacher made a very interesting connection between this woman's thoughts about not wanting to be "ordinary" and the current obsession with the famous and with fame, especially among women. She talked about a term from social psychology, to BIRK, or "birking", which stands for "basking in reflected glory", and how it has become so common for people to idolize the rich and famous to feel worth rather than to ground our worth in God.
In closing: If you are so inclined, please pray for my sister who had a biopsy yesterday and will likely be having a laser surgery in the next month or so due to what they are currently calling "pre-cancerous/suspicious" cells in an area the size of a quarter in her cervix (and for those of you for whom the thought may enter your mind, no, she does not have HPV and was a virgin when she married at 40 years of age).
And...
Extremism: I while back I wrote a post where I talked about the benefits of considering opinions more extreme than my own. It takes a bit of mental work, but often there is some truth at the base of many extreme opinions. I just have to be careful that I don't get carried away with it. Yesterday in the comments to a post over at Novaseeker's I made the mistake of reading the comment of someone who I had previously decided to avoid reading the comments of. However, I saw that he referred to my friend Ame, so I read it. You know, this may be the first time ever that I saw some good from porn. Perhaps it is better for women if some men prefer porn to them. Of course the reason it would be better has to do with the effects of porn to begin with, so that is rather a circular argument (and yes, entirely facetious).
Purity: Via email, a friend recently commented on some of the discussion over virginity and particularly the, um, physical aspects of it. She shared this bit of wisdom, gleaned in part from The Facts of Life: Purity resides in the heart, not in the vagina. True that.
Along similar lines, but far funnier, was a conversation I recently had with a group of single christian women ranging in age from early 20s to early 50s. We were talking about singleness and sexual temptation when one of the women, a widow in her early 50s who I'll refer to as "J", began to relate a story about a date she was on several months ago. J said that she found the man very sweet and that she really liked him and was struggling with being sexually tempted when he had his arm around her waist. She then shared that she was simultaneously embarrassed that he may be able to feel her Spanx. This lead to her conclusion that Spanx = modern day chastity belt :) (I know the ladies will think that is funny...we laughed over that one for quite a while)
Being "Normal": Or normalcy or normality? I don't know if those are even words. Anyhoo, I am participating in a women's Bible study on the book of Esther and the teacher via video (Beth Moore) did a survey of women, both believers and unbelievers while preparing for the study. One woman, married for a few years but without children, who responded to the survey said that she feared losing her uniqueness. She does not want to be considered normal or ordinary. She does not want who she is to be defined by being some one's "wife" or some one's "mother", she just wants to be "happy". The teacher made a very interesting connection between this woman's thoughts about not wanting to be "ordinary" and the current obsession with the famous and with fame, especially among women. She talked about a term from social psychology, to BIRK, or "birking", which stands for "basking in reflected glory", and how it has become so common for people to idolize the rich and famous to feel worth rather than to ground our worth in God.
In closing: If you are so inclined, please pray for my sister who had a biopsy yesterday and will likely be having a laser surgery in the next month or so due to what they are currently calling "pre-cancerous/suspicious" cells in an area the size of a quarter in her cervix (and for those of you for whom the thought may enter your mind, no, she does not have HPV and was a virgin when she married at 40 years of age).
And...
LET'S GO PENS!!!!!!!!
Friday, May 22, 2009
Sex, marriage, humanity and hat tricks
Since I appear to currently be unable to produce an entire post on one subject that makes sense, and in imitation of Elusive Wapiti and Terri at Breathing Grace, I present to you, a potpourri of topics.
Sex and Marriage
In the comments to my post Um....yeah (brilliant title, isn't it?) Elusive Wapiti and I had a brief exchange about the role of sex in the marrying of a man and a woman. Briefly, I said that in the old testament sex = marriage, so to God, sex = marriage, and EW said nuh uh (okay, there was more to it than that...go read the comments and the post EW linked to). I'm still not sure what I think about this because of questions that I have about some scriptures. In a comment I made that was buried in the other comments, I said the following:
"I remember reading that post about Bristol and Levi last year. To be honest I am not certain what I think about this issue and perhaps it is a matter of semantics. Does "marriage" occur during the sexual act? I'm not sure, but it kinda sounds like it if you read about Isaac and Rebekah. Even so, if it is not the joining of the two into one flesh that "marries" the man and woman, in both Deut 22 and Lev 22 God commands that if a man has sex with an un-betrothed virgin that he MUST marry her. If he does not marry her and goes on to have sex with another he is having sex with someone other than the woman God commanded that he must marry. It may not be adultery by strict definition but I don't understand how the functional impact is any different.So, I guess what I would say in response is to ask what you would say about the following:- What about Isaac and Rebekah? It appears that their marriage did occur when he "took" her. -What about Deut 22 and Lev 22 that says if a man sleeps with a virgin he must marry her?"
So, what do y'all think?
Humanity
Hat tricks
Woo Hoo!!! Geno Malkin had a hat trick last night as the Penguins beat the Hurricanes 7-4 in game 2 of the NHL eastern conference finals. First playoff hat trick for the Pens since who knows when. Stanley Cup predictions anyone? I say it will be the Pens and Red Wings again, but this time my Pens will win (Why, yes, I was born and raised in the Pittsburgh area. Yes, I am a homer. Whatever made you ask those questions? ;) ).
Sex and Marriage
In the comments to my post Um....yeah (brilliant title, isn't it?) Elusive Wapiti and I had a brief exchange about the role of sex in the marrying of a man and a woman. Briefly, I said that in the old testament sex = marriage, so to God, sex = marriage, and EW said nuh uh (okay, there was more to it than that...go read the comments and the post EW linked to). I'm still not sure what I think about this because of questions that I have about some scriptures. In a comment I made that was buried in the other comments, I said the following:
"I remember reading that post about Bristol and Levi last year. To be honest I am not certain what I think about this issue and perhaps it is a matter of semantics. Does "marriage" occur during the sexual act? I'm not sure, but it kinda sounds like it if you read about Isaac and Rebekah. Even so, if it is not the joining of the two into one flesh that "marries" the man and woman, in both Deut 22 and Lev 22 God commands that if a man has sex with an un-betrothed virgin that he MUST marry her. If he does not marry her and goes on to have sex with another he is having sex with someone other than the woman God commanded that he must marry. It may not be adultery by strict definition but I don't understand how the functional impact is any different.So, I guess what I would say in response is to ask what you would say about the following:- What about Isaac and Rebekah? It appears that their marriage did occur when he "took" her. -What about Deut 22 and Lev 22 that says if a man sleeps with a virgin he must marry her?"
So, what do y'all think?
Humanity
I get annoyed with many "politically correct" ideas. For example, what was the point of changing the tag line "To boldly go where no man has gone before" to "To boldly go where no one has gone before" in the new Star Trek movie (which was a great flick)? However I do insist that my students use what is called "person first language" when referring to our patients/clients. This means we do not call someone a "stroke" or a "nerve injury", we call them a person who has had a stroke, or a person who has had a nerve injury. I insist on this because it is important to see someone as a person, not a diagnosis, and because calling someone a "head injury" is dehumanizing. Other examples of dehumanization include when the Nazis transported the Jews in cattle cars and called them "dogs", and those who are pro-abortion insisting that a baby be called a "fetus" before birth. It's tough to kill people when you think of them as human beings.
Lesser ill will than murder is associated with dehumanization as well. Some feminists call men "animals" to make them easier to distrust and despise. Recently a commenter at MarkyMark's referred to women as "sweaty bags of cellulite". Well.... I'm not quite sure what to say about that other than ask the following. Do you really need to dehumanize women to make the decision for yourself that you don't want to marry or associate with women? If the answer to that question is no, why do it? If it is yes, maybe you should ask yourself why.
Hat tricks
Woo Hoo!!! Geno Malkin had a hat trick last night as the Penguins beat the Hurricanes 7-4 in game 2 of the NHL eastern conference finals. First playoff hat trick for the Pens since who knows when. Stanley Cup predictions anyone? I say it will be the Pens and Red Wings again, but this time my Pens will win (Why, yes, I was born and raised in the Pittsburgh area. Yes, I am a homer. Whatever made you ask those questions? ;) ).
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)